113 gallons per hour...
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It
is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier
air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel
usage in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons used
for recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but obviously
the auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old data
(1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30 million
gallons of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20 million gallons of
that was in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

Eisboch

That's still not the point. It's the matter of one guy using too much of a
dwindling natural resource. There's no possible justification for burning
50 to 100 gallons of fuel an hour for kicks.

How many GPH of fuel burn is justifiable, by HK standards, for "just for
kicks" boat useage? And please let us know how you arrived at your
conclusion.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

113 gallons per hour...
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..



Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

I could live with that as neither of my boats burn anything close to that.
But there are others that would complain because offshore fishing is what
they do for recreation and they probably have a lot invested in it.

Unfortunately, the only fair way to deal with it is to have a across the
board fuel surcharge that applies to everyone. Use more, pay more. Heck,
congress is pushing to raise federal cigarette taxes to discourage smoking.
Everyone that smokes will pay with no special consideration to those who can
afford it and those that can't.

Eisboch

113 gallons per hour...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

I could live with that as neither of my boats burn anything close to that.
But there are others that would complain because offshore fishing is what
they do for recreation and they probably have a lot invested in it.




Let them complain.

113 gallons per hour...
 

Jim wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it.
It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for
"fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747
uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel
usage in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons
used for recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but
obviously the auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old
data (1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30
million gallons of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20
million gallons of that was in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

Eisboch

That's still not the point. It's the matter of one guy using too much
of a dwindling natural resource. There's no possible justification for
burning 50 to 100 gallons of fuel an hour for kicks.

How many GPH of fuel burn is justifiable, by HK standards, for "just for
kicks" boat useage? And please let us know how you arrived at your
conclusion.


Less than 40 gph at cruise, with that number diminishing every couple of
years, so that eventually we end up with smaller boats burning a lot
less fuel or large boats with smaller engines.

113 gallons per hour...
 

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:28:29 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch
There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.

But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish. Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

Who gets the money? Exxon?

Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations
set up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve
the public's trust.

113 gallons per hour...
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..


Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations set
up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve the
public's trust.

Good grief Harry, haven't you learned by now that government distributed
funds (usually grants) for more research and development of anything rarely
yields anything? Boondoogles mostly.

Real advancements will come from private industry when there is a financial
reward or return for the investment cost and effort.

Eisboch

113 gallons per hour...
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Jim wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It
is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for
"fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747
uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier
air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel
usage in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons used
for recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but
obviously the auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old
data (1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30
million gallons of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20 million
gallons of that was in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

Eisboch

That's still not the point. It's the matter of one guy using too much of
a dwindling natural resource. There's no possible justification for
burning 50 to 100 gallons of fuel an hour for kicks.

How many GPH of fuel burn is justifiable, by HK standards, for "just for
kicks" boat useage? And please let us know how you arrived at your
conclusion.


Less than 40 gph at cruise, with that number diminishing every couple of
years, so that eventually we end up with smaller boats burning a lot less
fuel or large boats with smaller engines.

I can tell you put a lot of thought into this matter.






--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:43:57 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is a
matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."

Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch




There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier
air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.

Why? If they are on it for pleasure, they're burning one hell of a lot of
fuel. The folks on cruise ships are burning one hell of a lot of fuel.
They're doing it for 'fun'. Driving to a ski resort burns fuel, for fun.
Maybe there should be a big 'fun tax' in addition to the tax on everything
over 49%.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:28:29 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.



But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish. Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch



Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

Who gets the money? Exxon?

113 gallons per hour...
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...

I have two concerns with nuclear.

1) We need a better alternative to the fate of spent fuel than
sweeping it under the rug.

2) It isn't cheap. I pay one utility bill to a fossil fuel(coal)
electric company and another to a nuclear fuel company. The nuclear
kwh is about 30% higher in cost than the fossil fuel.

It is a tough question, but one we are going to have to come to terms
with... I'm damn near willing to do anything to remove us from the
teat of arab oil.....


I am for nuclear power, but I am not sure I understand how it will help in
getting us off of oil.
Nuc power will reduce fossil fuel use but it is primarily coal I think.

Eisboch